The reaction among Democrats to Donald Trump’s return to power has been significantly more subdued than what we saw in 2016 after the mogul’s first shocking electoral win. The old-school “resistance” is dead, and it’s not clear what will replace it. But Democratic elected officials are developing new strategies for dealing with the new realities in Washington. Here are five distinct approaches that have emerged, even before Trump’s second administration has begun.
Some Democrats are so thoroughly impressed by the current power of the MAGA movement they are choosing to surrender to it in significant respects. The prime example is Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, the onetime fiery populist politician who is now becoming conspicuous in his desire to admit his party’s weaknesses and snuggle up to the new regime. The freshman and one-time ally of Bernie Sanders has been drifting away from the left wing of his party for a good while, particularly via his vocally unconditional backing for Israel during its war in Gaza. But now he’s making news regularly for taking steps in Trump’s direction.
Quite a few Democrats publicly expressed dismay over Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter, but Fetterman distinguished himself by calling for a corresponding pardon for Trump over his hush-money conviction in New York. Similarly, many Democrats have discussed ways to reach out to the voters they have lost to Trump. Fetterman’s approach was to join Trump’s Truth Social platform, which is a fever swamp for the president-elect’s most passionate supporters. Various Democrats are cautiously circling Elon Musk, Trump’s new best friend and potential slayer of the civil-service system and the New Deal–Great Society legacy of federal programs. But Fetterman seems to want to become Musk’s buddy, too, exchanging compliments with him in a sort of weird courtship. Fetterman has also gone out of his way to exhibit openness to support for Trump’s controversial Cabinet nominees even as nearly every other Senate Democrat takes the tack of forcing Republicans to take a stand on people like Pete Hegseth before weighing in themselves.
It’s probably germane to Fetterman’s conduct that he will be up for reelection in 2028, a presidential-election year in a state Trump carried on November 5. Or maybe he’s just burnishing his credentials as the maverick who blew up the Senate dress code.
Other Democrats are being much more selectively friendly to Trump, searching for “common ground” on issues where they believe he will be cross-pressured by his wealthy backers and more conventional Republicans. Like Fetterman, these Democrats — including Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — tend to come from the progressive wing of the party and have longed chafed at the centrist economic policies advanced by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and, to some extent, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. They’ve talked about strategically encouraging Trump’s “populist” impulses on such issues as credit-card interest and big-tech regulation, partly as a matter of forcing the new president and his congressional allies to put up or shut up.
So the idea is to push off a discredited Democratic Establishment, at least on economic issues, and either accomplish things for working-class voters in alliance with Trump or prove the hollowness of his “populism.”
Colorado governor Jared Solis has offered a similar strategy of selective cooperation by praising the potential agenda of Trump HHS secretary nominee, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as helpfully “shaking up” the medical and scientific Establishment.
At the other end of the spectrum, some centrist Democrats are pushing off what they perceive as a discredited progressive ascendancy in the party, especially on culture-war issues and immigration. The most outspoken of them showed up at last week’s annual meeting of the avowedly nonpartisan No Labels organization, which was otherwise dominated by Republicans seeking to demonstrate a bit of independence from the next administration. These include vocal critics of the 2024 Democratic message like House members Jared Golden, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Ritchie Torres, and Seth Moulton, along with wannabe 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Josh Gottheimer (his Virginia counterpart, Abigail Spanberger, wasn’t at the No Labels confab but is similarly positioned ideologically).
From a strategic point of view, these militant centrists appear to envision a 2028 presidential campaign that will take back the voters Biden won in 2020 and Harris lost this year.
We’re beginning to see the emergence of a faction of Democrats that is willing to cut policy or legislative deals with Team Trump in order to protect some vulnerable constituencies from MAGA wrath. This is particularly visible on the immigration front; some congressional Democrats are talking about cutting a deal to support some of Trump’s agenda in exchange for continued protection from deportation of DREAMers. Politico reports:
“The prize that many Democrats would like to secure is protecting Dreamers — Americans who came with their families to the U.S. at a young age and have since been protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program created by President Barack Obama in 2012.
“Trump himself expressed an openness to ‘do something about the Dreamers’ in a recent ‘Meet the Press’ interview. But he would almost certainly want significant policy concessions in return, including border security measures and changes to asylum law that Democrats have historically resisted.”
On a broader front, the New York Times has found significant support among Democratic governors to selectively cooperate with the new administration’s “mass deportation” plans in exchange for concessions:
“In interviews, 11 Democratic governors, governors-elect and candidates for the office often expressed defiance toward Mr. Trump’s expected immigration crackdown — but were also strikingly willing to highlight areas of potential cooperation.
“Several balanced messages of compassion for struggling migrants with a tough-on-crime tone. They said that they were willing to work with the Trump administration to deport people who had been convicted of serious crimes and that they wanted stricter border control, even as they vowed to defend migrant families and those fleeing violence in their home countries, as well as businesses that rely on immigrant labor.”
While the Democrats planning strategic cooperation with Trump are getting a lot of attention, it’s clear the bulk of elected officials and activists are more quietly waiting for the initial fallout from the new regime to develop while planning ahead for a Democratic comeback. This is particularly true among the House Democratic leadership, which hopes to exploit the extremely narrow Republican majority in the chamber (which will be exacerbated by vacancies for several months until Trump appointees can be replaced in special elections) on must-pass House votes going forward, while looking ahead with a plan to aggressively contest marginal Republican-held seats in the 2026 midterms. Historical precedents indicate very high odds that Democrats can flip the House in 2026, bringing a relatively quick end to any Republican legislative steamrolling on Trump’s behalf and signaling good vibes for 2028.
I think it is encouraging to see more emphasis placed on Dems’ religious perspectives and how they impact our policy commitments. I noted, for instance, teh Fox News article, “Democrats Are People of Faith, Too.” Do other sthink this is a good sign?
Zogby’s poll today has a very small bounce… Kerry actualyl gained zero and Bush lost three points. The results are all broken down at Polling Report (http://www.pollingreport.com).
Overall, Kerry-Edwards leads Bush-Cheney 48-43. But geographically, K-E holds a 2 point lead in the South, a 7 point lead in the West, and a 22 point lead in the East. Only in the Midwest does B-C have the edge, and only by 5 points. Either Zogby polled a lot of Midwesterners, the Zogby definition of the Midwest is geographically enormous, or some combination of the two. I’d think that the first possiblity is good for Kerry and the second possibility is good for Bush.
Do any of you know how Zogby defines the “Midwest”?
Place the blame for where it belongs: On the networks for allocating so little time to the convention. At least give it 2 hours, like a made-for-TV movie.
After listening to Kerry’s speech, I think he will equal the average of a 6-7 point bounce, which is huge considering how dug in people’s opinions are. The only criticism I have of the speech is that it was so long, the beginning of Cleland’s introduction did not make prime time network coverage (Kerry had to start at 10:05 so he could finish by 11:00). I think if the networks would have covered Cleland’s moving intro, plus maybe a little of Kerry’s shipmates, then the bounce would be even higher.
Nate–
I saw that headline for the AP story the other day about how Kerry is trailing in the electoral college votes, and I was suspicious when I first saw it. Sure enough, after the headline and first couple paragraphs, the evidence wasn’t nearly as “cut and dry” as they made it out to be.
They claim a vote count of 193 for Kerry to 217 for Bush, but I immediately noticed those are both well shy of the 270 needed. What have they done with the rest of the votes that are still up in the air? Simply ignored them, it appears. Toward the end of the article, they admit that 21 states are still “in play”, but they don’t offer any comparisons between the Kerry and Bush vote counts when you consider the way those states are leaning.
Nick already mentioned electoral-vote.com, which breaks down data by strong Kerry, weak Kerry, barely Kerry, tied, barely Bush, weak Bush, and strong Bush. Including the leaning states, Kerry is currently up 289 to 232. The last time the website had him trailing was for a few days at the end of June. The long-term look has been fairly favorable, with Kerry leading in electoral votes most of the time over the past few months.
The concern is, we’ve still got a lot of “barely Kerry” states. It’d be nice to see the convention solidfy several of the weak Kerry states into solid territory, and even slide some of the barely Kerry states into the “weak state” category.
*BKW
http://www.geocities.com/numbers_04/
I also use that site for electoral predictions. His methodology is at the bottom of the page.
> Pat Buchanan: This was an amazing speech. I
> think he took the populist right. If all I saw was
> this speech, I would vote for him. Kerry did far
> far more than I ever thought he could.
> David Brooks: Kerry has framed the race,. The
> Republicans will look foolish attacking him
You can add THE WEEKLY STANDARD’s Jonathan V. Last & Mike Murphy and some NY Post guy (whose name I forgot) to the list of worried conservatives reluctantly impressed by the Demo convention in general and Kerry’s speech in particular.
—
I do think Karl Rove has some work to do. First of all because Kerry & co. have more “maneuvering room” with their base (which loathes “Shrub” more than anything), so they can afford to pursue centrist themes. OK, there is Nader, but you know what I mean. The other problem is the Democrats actually managed to put on a reasonably positive, optimistic show in Boston. So how will the incumbent respond to that? By firing away more negative attack ads against Kerry/Edwards? That would further alienate swing voters. Seems like the only option is to run on past accomplishments, except the economy, budget deficits, Iraq etc. really don’t produce that much to brag about…
—
Unless the economy improves drastically & unquestionably across the whole spectrum and there is a real series of breakthroughs in the Middle East (Bin Laden captured + solid WMD evidence emerges at last), I think Kerry might win merely by doing “OK” in the debates and on the campaign trail. In that respect, it was probably smart of JFK to avoid being specific about Iraq. He will get a chance to debate the issue with “Shrub” himself on national TV barely a month before the election. I think the pressure will be on the latter rather than the former.
—
Finally, isn’t it funny how “Shrub” really is starting snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here?? I mean, without the misguided Iraq fiasco, he would still have his halo intact as “great resolute war leader”. I have always thought his bark was worse than his bite…”all hat and no cattle” as they say in his native Texas. He could have safely basked in the glory of Afghanistan, kept blathering about “axes of evil” while pursuing sabre-rattling neocon policies in his American Enterprise Institute speeches without actually risking anything. The economy and record deficits would still be giving him problems, true, but neither would be as bad because 200 billion dollar’s worth of Iraq-related expenses and insecurities would not be dragging things down. And John F. Kerry would now be doing as badly as Dukakis in 1988. There is no way a stiff, aloof, elitist, liberal Massachusetts senator would win under normal circumstances! But this isn’t business as usual. And for that, we can thank the amazing incompetence of the current incumbent.
MARCU$
I have tried to judge this speach in light of Ruy’s oft-repeated statement that the challenger has to present himself as a minimally acceptable alternative to the incumbent. Then, people who have decided to “fire” the incumbent can safely decide to vote for the challenger. In this light, Kerry had to satisfy people that he could handle the one issue where they fear for their personal safety, the war against terror. That is why he quite rightly focused on that issue, rather than emphasising the economy. A sufficient number of people have already decided to fire Bush with regard to the economy. Now they have been convinced that they will live to see the better economic times.
In my view, Kerry hit a home run.
Paul C
Nate —
How the Electoral College vote is leaning at this point depends on how you weight the various polls. Here’s a couple of second opinions to the story you cited:
Kerry 291 Bush 237
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Kerry 171 Bush 138
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/election-test-fl,1,2794139.flash?coll=la-home-multimedia
I just wish he would have explained more fully his position on Iraq. All in all a good speech
This is more of a question than a comment, and I’m sorry that it doesn’t pertain to this particular blog entry but rather an appeal to Ruy Teixeira to explain something that has been puzzing me for some time.
I greatly appreciate Mr. Teixeira’s way of dissecting the polls. There’s nothing else like it. But it seems that all too often he focuses on overall (national-level) data, when what will decide the next presidential race is electoral college votes.
I have been bouyed along by Mr. Teixeira’s interpretations, and had been feeling quite encouraged. . . until I saw this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040725/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_road_to270&cid=694&ncid=716
which purports to show that whatever the situation with the popular vote, Bush seems to be still leading in projections for the electoral college.
Why does Mr. Teixeira tend to neglect this area of concern? Is it because most available polling data does not allow for analysis of electoral college votes?
In any case, it would be wonderful if he could write something soon that would explain and comment upon this seemingly important angle.
[If this (or the recent AP poll) has already been covered in a previous post which I somehow missed, please accept my apologies for the inconvenience.]
-Nate Roberts
Hmmm, Allan, I remember him saying something about lowering taxes on the middle class and raising taxes on those who make more than $200,000.
If I made more than $200,000, I guess I’d think twice about voting for Kerry. But I don’t …
He also said something about taking care of Americans before giving away big tax breaks to companies like Enron.
The guy’s a populist! I think Bush is in big trouble …
Settle down Joe. Can we both agree that Pat Buchanon doesn’t exactly have much credibility? He is the GOP’s Al Sharpton. I myself am more libertarian than conservative. I’m one of the people that thinks Bush is almost as bad as Democrats on spending,oh hell, he is as bad. I guess with the dems,most people come to expect higher taxes and more spending. At least they’re more honest about it. I am glad that Kerry said he would raise taxes though. That should make for a nice contrast. I’m sure that line will go over well with swing voters and people trying to make ends meet. Why do the politicians think we are under taxed in this country? It just boggles my mind. I’m sure the dems will catch a bounce from this convention. Will it last? I doubt it. Enjoy it while you can I guess.
Allan–
Pat Buchanan liked it. The MSNBC swing-voters focus group liked it. Obviously us partisans liked it.
You go right ahead and nitpick away. “Oh, he’s sweaty!” “Oh, he loves the French!” “Rove’ll get him!” (You missed the one about how ABC ran a couple of minutes of the Al-Jazeera feed over the speech to “create the association” between Kerry and Arabs: “He’s Bin Laden’s candidate!”–maybe you can include it later on LGF.)
We don’t mind. This was a *very* strong opening move, and it gave no ground to the despicable torrent of sewage headed his way over the next three months. He did a great job. You, though, are grasping at straws.
I do agree with you on the “west wing” comment, though. I think it would have been a stronger joke if he’d said “left wing”, too. Better self-deprecation, and more of a contrast to the utter lack of humility, rhetorical or otherwise, in his opponent.
It was a great speech. Very impressive.
I think it’s Kerry’s election to win or lose, and after tonight I’m betting on the former.
I didn’t hear how he would manage the war in Iraq differently than the way it is being run now. Also it’s funny when all you democrats talk about bringing our allies etc. back into the fold. That’s code for France and Germany. We don’t need those ungracious bastards.
I am the only one that noticed that Kerry was sweating like a pig up there on stage? I thought it was hilarious. They needed to crank up the AC in the arena. I also heard the stage manager curse at the guys in the rafters while watching CNN. He was heard saying “what the fuck are you guys doing up there,drop all the balloons and confetti now!” As for the speech itself, it was Kerry trying to pretend that he was a Republican. He hammered away that he would be a better command-in-chief than Bush. He didn’t really talk about his record in the Senate for the last twenty years, but that’s okay because I’m sure Karl Rove et al will make sure that Kerry’s voting record gets exposed for what it is and that is extremely liberal. I can’t wait for the RNC now. Oh yeah I almost forgot, Kerry says he was born in the “west wing” of the hospital in Colorado. I beg to differ. He was born in the left wing of the hospital :^)
Yessssss!!! That was one kickass speech.
We co-hosted a Convention party tonight in northern Virginia, and *everyone* there was pumped. The marching orders for hosts were as top priority to get at least one or two people to agree to host parties and we surpassed that long before he gave his speech. One of the more skeptical/worried guests, a guy who’s seen lots of conventions over the years, said to me after, big smile on his face, “He’s aliiiiiiive!!” There’s a long way to go–the debates will be huge, events can take wild turns, etc. But right now I’m feeling good. I did not think he could give a speech that good. He went a long way towards helping himself preempt the toughest challenges he faces. And he so obviously seemed to enjoy himself. Yes, I’m feeling good tonight.
Pat Buchanan: This was an amazing speech. I think he took the populist right. If all I saw was this speech, I would vote for him. Kerry did far far more than I ever thought he could.
David Brooks: Kerry has framed the race,. The Republicans will look foolish attacking him
How high the bounce?
7-8 points…
The deal is sealed wiith the swing voters AND the entire Democratic Party – Zell Miller is fired up too.
It is back to Crawford time….
Charlie Cook will no longer tremble at the L word…
I suspect that the biggest group of votes still up fpr grabs are voters who are still reasonably well disposed to Bush. For the most part those are not independents, who will probably break strongly to Kerry.
These voters do care a lot about foreign policy and terrorism, and they gove Bush high marks in those areas. That is why Kerry has to make it clear he is just as mean and nasty as any Republican.
The voters I’m talking about are Perot voters; quite conservative, but not in Bush’s pocket. They are sufficiently alienated so they do not have pro-Republican mojo.
yes, the economy may be the biggest *current* issue in the swing states. But I think Kerry’s “strongman” approach is the best possible way to inoculate himself against the possibility of a terrorist attack before November.
The knee-jerk reaction if there’s another horror will be to rally ’round the flag…and Kerry can only stay in the conversation at that point if he has tough-guy credentials with the voters. If, instead, he’s spent the entire election talking about health care or jobs programs — then they’ll immediately tune him out when the s*** hits the fan.
I think Frenchfries is 100% right.
Ruy, do you have thoughts on what specifically you would want Kerry to offer as his plan for Iraq, prior to his speech tonight? Would it be the proposal offered by O’Hanlon in an article you linked to awhile back?
Deep in my bones I believe Kerry has been sandbaggin this Iraq issue and this strength/terrorism thing…
Consider ..this is the most tightly scripted Demo convention ever and all signs are pointing to it…a more plan for Iraq and one helluva speech…
The bars have been lowered, even Charlie Cook says “he just has to be acceptable” and the Republican attack dogs assigned to DNC duty have been snarling about IraQ all week..
They should be careful what they ask for ….I think they’ll probably get it
The man himself will let us know tonite what tack he will take! I look forward to reacting to it with you-all to-morrow…
I’m worried as well about Kerry’s credibility gap on the Iraq issue. But I’m still very anxious about him formulating a specific “plan” for handling the situation. Bush doesn’t formulate one either. He just has the benefit of being there “first”, so to say. He did something, he toppled Saddam. He just messed up afterwards.
But I really think that every specific proposal coming from Kerry will immediately be exploited by the other side. You can imagine the slogans yourselves.
Maybe I’m just naive on this, or overly pessimistic. But I think Kerry’s emphasis on “respect” and “alliances” is about as for as you can go proposing actual talks or an Iraq conference, for instance.